babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Does an NDP/Lib merger help Harper? Here are the numbers

There has been much discussion over the last couple years regarding NDP/Liberal co-operation at the federal level (see a good 2008 post at PunditsGuide.ca). The debate often assumes that Liberal/NDP cooperation would result in some kind of progressive government because the Conservatives get less than 50% of the popular vote. So, for this post, I thought I’d take a data-based look at whether an NDP/Liberal merger would actually result in a change of government.

Comments

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is a myth that a Liberal/N.D.P. merger would automatically compete with, if not defeat, the Conservatives.

A substantial percentage of the Liberal vote is the right-of-centre 'Liberals For Life' anti-abortion crowd, who would never, ever support an Liberal/N.D.P. merger, and would move en mass to the Conservatives if such an event were ever to take place. That would give the Conservatives an additional 7-10% boost in voter support, almost ensuring them of another majority government.

I think we are actually in agreement about the outcome of a merger. The analysis I posted through the link modeled the Liberal split and then applied it riding by riding and found that it would deliver Harper a majority. I'd disagree with who you think would break conservative, but on the outcome we agree.

Don't matter what the numbers are, it ain't going to happen, and Harper will get his majority anyway. Four parties splitting the Opposition vote - Harper couldn't ask for a better set of circumstances.

Apologies mikem1! We seem to have people that like to scorn your analysis without having bothered to read it. Thanks for doing this! Although, as you yourself acknowledge, the model has "no predictive capacity".

I think it might be a better result by (hypothetically) merging the NDP, Greens and Bloc into one party and leaving the right wing vote split between the Conservatives and Liberals. But as the orange wave grows in numbers, maybe the NDP doesn't even need the help of the Bloc and the Greens.

I think it might be a better result by (hypothetically) merging the NDP, Greens and Bloc into one party and leaving the right wing vote split between the Conservatives and Liberals. But as the orange wave grows in numbers, maybe the NDP doesn't even need the help of the Bloc and the Greens.

Better to let the Bloc and Greens die a natural death.

The Orange Wave can continue to grow when former Liberal supporters, seeing a competent NDP leader as Opposition Leader for the first time, find themselves with that option for the first time in Canadian history.

The Liberal hierarchy is deathly afraid that is what the future holds for them...to become like the Liberal/Democrats of England for decades.

Not sure the Bloc actually will die. I think they'd rather hand on at a 20-24% support level and siphon off enough jues theoretically "left of center" votes to prevent the NDP getting a plurality of the overall popular vote than disband...winding up the Bloc which would involve sovereingtists accepting that their goal wasn't going to happen in this generatiion-and who ever likes to accept that kind of thing?

And the Greens will probably be kept going on life support as long as their continued nominal existence benefits the Liberals and the Harpercons.

... winding up the Bloc which would involve sovereingtists accepting that their goal wasn't going to happen in this generatiion-and who ever likes to accept that kind of thing?

I don't think so, Ken. Québec had 8 years of majority PQ rule and one referendum before the Bloc was ever thought of. No sovereignist believes that sovereignty will ever be made in Ottawa. The very existence of the Bloc has always been quite controversial, and difficult for many to understand. It was a byproduct of the disintegration of the Mulroney "coalition" in Québec. The significant numbers of sovereignist-minded voters who switched to the NDP in 2011 is one symptom of that. Likewise, Québec solidaire's position in the federal election, that people should vote to defeat Harper (whether they voted Bloc or NDP), didn't hurt their standing among sovereignists, despite the outrage of Duceppe and others.

... winding up the Bloc which would involve sovereingtists accepting that their goal wasn't going to happen in this generatiion-and who ever likes to accept that kind of thing?

I don't think so, Ken. Québec had 8 years of majority PQ rule and one referendum before the Bloc was ever thought of. No sovereignist believes that sovereignty will ever be made in Ottawa. The very existence of the Bloc has always been quite controversial, and difficult for many to understand. It was a byproduct of the disintegration of the Mulroney "coalition" in Québec. The significant numbers of sovereignist-minded voters who switched to the NDP in 2011 is one symptom of that. Likewise, Québec solidaire's position in the federal election, that people should vote to defeat Harper (whether they voted Bloc or NDP), didn't hurt their standing among sovereignists, despite the outrage of Duceppe and others.

Just some drift here to address that point.

I see what you're saying.

There's probably a large group of PQ voters who wouldn't shed any tears if the BQ did dissolve.

A decision of the Bloc to keep fighting for federal seats might then come down to simple egotism on the part of the people still running the Bloc. Winding it down would mean admitting that the Ottawa strategy was a failure, and also conceding a large chunk of their former support to a party that didn't put sovereignty at the very top of its agenda.